Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
Najakat Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 28966 of 2018, 1464, 5430, 8204, 24220, 40982 of 2019, 1212, 12376, 13484, 18436, 15420 of 2020
Decided on : 22-10-2021
Constitution of India , 1950 – Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 22, 23, 47,100, 110(g), 243-G, 226, 311 National Food Security Act, 2013- Section 2(g), 2(3), 2(4), 2(14), 2(16), 2(20) , 2(23) , 2(24), 3, 7, 10, 15, 40, 39(2)(e), 22(4)(d) - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 2(a), 2(1), 3 - U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 - Section 2(14), 15, 24 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(e) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 26(2)(k) - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 21, 24 - Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 32, 23, 23(2)(h), 54(2)(m) and 57- Uttar Pradesh State Food Security Rules, 2015 – Section 10 – Food Security (Assistance to State Governments) Rules, 2015 - Uttar Pradesh State Food Security Rules, 2015 - Chapter III - Rule 9 - U.P. State Food Security Rules, 2015 - Chapter III – Rule 3, 5, 5(4), 5(4)(c), 5(4)(d), 7, 9, 10 - U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 1990 - Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles Distribution Order, 1977 - Clause 24 - Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1989 - Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 - Clause 2(c), Clause 2(l), Clause 21, Clause 27, Clause 28 - Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 - Clause 8, Clause 9, Clause 13 - Right to food - right to life - States with duty to raise level of nutrition and standard of living and to improve public health - Targeted Public Distribution System - Power to State Government to issue order for controlling and regulating production, supply and distribution of essential commodities - Operation of fair price shops - Continuation of appointments, notifications, orders etc. issued under enactments repealed and re-enacted - principles of natural justice - right to receive foodgrains at subsidized rates by persons belonging to eligible households - Grievance Redressal System - Social Audit - Distribution of food grains by States - Provisions of order to prevail over previous orders of State Government - Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats - Public distribution system - Universal Declaration of Human Rights - powers and functions of Authority - audi alteram partem - Whether after issuance of Control Order 2016, having been issued in light of Act of 2013 and Act of 2016, earlier Government Order of 2004 stood superseded and repealed - Whether any benefit can be extended to dealers/licensee of Government Orders when their license has been cancelled under new scheme of 2016, which provides for complete mechanism in itself.
Finding of the Court:
Procedure laid down under Control Order, 2016 having not been complied with or opportunity, as envisaged under sub-clause (7) of Clause 8, has not been provided to an agent/dealer - Once entire exercise has been completed and appeal has been filed with all grounds available, and finding having being recorded by Appellate Authority, then nothing remains to be seen and considered by this Court, exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution - pursuant to promulgation of Control Order 2016, earlier Government Order of 2004 stood superseded and repealed - Further no benefit of Government Orders dated 29.07.2004 and 16.10.2014 can be extended while dealing with matters relating to suspension and cancellation of license under new regime of 2016.
Result: Writ petitions stand dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. ‘Right to food’ emanates from ‘right to life’ guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Moving forward Central Government enacted National Food Security Act, 2013 (hereinafter called as “Act of 2013”) keeping in mind Article 47 of the Constitution, which mandates the States with duty to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and to improve public health.
2. Act of 2013 was implemented with the object of providing food and nutritional security in human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of food at affordable price to people to live a life with dignity and for matters connected therewith. The Government implemented Targeted Public Distribution System under which foodgrains is provided to the “eligible household” at subsidised rates which includes people Below Poverty Line, including Antyodaya Anna Yojana, and Above Poverty Line households. Section 2(23) of Act of 2013 provides for “Targeted Public Distribution System”, which means the system for distribution of essential commodities to the ration card holders through fair price shops.
3. Following the implementation of Act of 2013, the State Government framed Uttar Pradesh State Food Security Rules, 2015 (hereinafter called as “Rules of 2015”) exercising powers under Section 40 of Act of 2013.
4. The Central Government thereafter enacted “The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (hereinafter called as “Act of 2016”) for providing good governance, efficient, transparent, and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services, the expenditure for which is incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India, to individuals residing in India through assigning of unique identity numbers to such individuals and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The validity of said Act was challenged before Supreme Court of India in case of K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired) and Another (AADHAAR) vs. Union of India and Another (2019) 1 SCC 1, and Apex Court upheld the validity of Act of 2016.
5. As the country had become self sufficient in the production of foodgrains, the necessity arose for distribution of foodgrains through Targeted Public Distribution System to the last person (Antyodaya). Act of 2013 was the step towards fulfilment of object of the Government creating a system so that the foodgrains reaches the most vulnerable section of society. Enactment of the Aadhaar Act in year 2016 was with the aim that subsidy granted from the Consolidated Fund of India reach to the most deserving and needy person, further capping the pilferage which existed in the delivery system.
6. Section 40 of Act of 2013 mandated the State Government by notification, and subject to the condition of previous publication, and consistent with the Act and rules framed by the Central Government to make rules to carry out provisions of Act of 2013.
7. Rules of 2015 was the first step by the State Government towards the achievement of fulfilment of dreams for foodgrains reaching to most vulnerable section of the society through Targeted Public Distribution System. Prior to enactment of Act of 2013, the State Governments were issuing various Government Orders from time to time exercising power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1955”), which was enacted for the control of production, supply and distribution of essential commodities.
8. Section 3 of Act of 1955 provided power to the State Government to issue order for controlling and regulating the production, supply and distribution of the essential commodities. It was in exercise of this power under Section 3 of Act of 1955 that U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1989 was issued.
9. Thereafter came the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 1990 and Clause 24 of the Order provided for ‘rescission’ of earlier Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles Distr
A dealer is bound by the license/agreement and violation of any of the conditions of the agreement leads to suspension/revocation of his license.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the licensee of a fair price shop is required to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the license and the provisions of the Control ....
The court affirmed that a licensee does not possess a fundamental right to operate a fair price shop and that the inquiry process regarding license cancellation is summary in nature, aligning with pr....
The judgment established that a summary inquiry for the cancellation of a fair price shop license does not require the supply of the inquiry report to the licensee or a detailed hearing, and that the....
Public distribution system – Cancellation of licence - Cancellation of Absence of reasoning as to the mandatory requirement of provision which conferred jurisdiction on the quasi judicial authority o....
Point of Law : Proceedings for cancellation on a charge of short distribution or short measurement is a stigmatic order that visits a fair price shop dealer with adverse civil consequences. It impact....
The cancellation of a Fair Price Shop dealer's authorization must follow due process, including a fair inquiry and provision of reasons, as mandated by the Control Order, 2018.
The State Control Order, 2013 remains effective and is not rendered redundant by the NFSA, 2013 or TPDS Control Order, 2015 until full implementation of the NFSA is established.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
